Beta 1.4.3 - Snowballing worse than ever (better than ever after hotfix).

Dabos37

Squire
Best answers
0
Just another threat about this to try to give more visibility to this issue. 1.4.3 has introduced a huge snowballing issue and It is pretty common to see tons of settlements being conquered in the first 50 days and some factions getting wrecked in no time.

The two worse ofenders are:

1- AI being able to assaults settlements too fast without giving time to defend.
2- The new war/peace tweaks have messed up the balancing again.

Suggestions:

1- Increase time for siege preparations and for building siege machines. Introduce penalties in simulated battles for armies attacking without enough siege equipment (at least one tower and ram) or just force the AI to take some time before assaulting as It happened before 1.4.3.

2- Fix the bug which makes that Aserai and SE always making peace in first day. Plus Increase SE and/or Aserai aggressivenes towards Kuzhaits.
 

stevehoos

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
Yep, this and trading bugs are making 1.4.3 not even playable as a test run. Too much is going wrong to report on new possible bugs with new features. It's not fine how it is, it took 5 minutes in game for Vlandia to take two empire settlements; it's completely broken.

Here's 1.4.3 another bug: auto siege win:
 
Last edited:

AnandaShanti

Knight
Best answers
0
If you're having a problem I hope they look at your .sav and investigate. For me it's comparable to 1.4.2 beta and not to much has changed so far in 200 days.
 

AxiosXiphos

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Didn't the last hotfix fix the issue?
Indeed it did.

Regarding snowballing that is an incredibly hard thing to balance. Total War has been struggling with that for decades and they have a dozen games under their belt - there is no single switch and every patch pushes it one way or another unintentionally.
 

StewVader

Recruit
Best answers
0
Indeed it did.

Regarding snowballing that is an incredibly hard thing to balance. Total War has been struggling with that for decades and they have a dozen games under their belt - there is no single switch and every patch pushes it one way or another unintentionally.
I have to disagree with your comparison. Total War has so much more going on and its so much more complex than Bannerlord, I see this as apples and oranges. And while anecdotal, while playing total war warhammer II I don't think i've ever experience game ruining snowballing like there is in Bannerlord.

Secondly, all of this amounts to design decision. They didn't have to start with the world at war. They could've had each empire at peace and slowly have political events happen that cause wars to break out, which occur while the player does the man quest line. In fact, having the quest where the player goes around and talk to NPCS is the perfect time period for the world to be at peace. Or they could have certain empires in non-aggression packs with other empires for a time.

In conclusion, If they want the game to be more arcade like, I just think most of us will be dissatisfied until the greater mod community can overhaul the game.
 

LeChat

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBM&BWF&SVC
Best answers
0
Indeed it did.

Regarding snowballing that is an incredibly hard thing to balance. Total War has been struggling with that for decades and they have a dozen games under their belt - there is no single switch and every patch pushes it one way or another unintentionally.
Yes. And I am astonished that Warband was so well balanced. I do not know if they use some tricks or if the engine was very simple and easily tunable.
 

mexxico

Developer
Best answers
0
I am examining situation currently. Will report you later what is happening. I have less control over war peace declerations (after 1.4.1, new tribute war peace system) but I can check why attacker army do not build siege equipments.

I can examine war peace codes next week but I need a bit time for going deep and understanding these codes and fix them. What I see as problem is some factions be in war with multiple factions and they do not tend to make peace even they are not in good situation. This make them eliminated in first years. I can fix it in next weeks.
 
Last edited:

a_ver_est

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
I have to disagree with your comparison. Total War has so much more going on and its so much more complex than Bannerlord, I see this as apples and oranges. And while anecdotal, while playing total war warhammer II I don't think i've ever experience game ruining snowballing like there is in Bannerlord.

Secondly, all of this amounts to design decision. They didn't have to start with the world at war. They could've had each empire at peace and slowly have political events happen that cause wars to break out, which occur while the player does the man quest line. In fact, having the quest where the player goes around and talk to NPCS is the perfect time period for the world to be at peace. Or they could have certain empires in non-aggression packs with other empires for a time.

In conclusion, If they want the game to be more arcade like, I just think most of us will be dissatisfied until the greater mod community can overhaul the game.
In fact if Vladians, Battanians and Sturgians fought together in the Battle of Pendraic it would make sense if they still have some kind of Non Aggression Pact or at least less prone 'go war' against them. The same thing for Asserai and Kuzait. And finally the Empire factions are in a civil war.

It would be a 'in game' historical setup but probably the problem will be that Vladians borders will become so safe for game playing.
 

Dabos37

Squire
Best answers
0
I am examining situation currently. Will report you later what is happening. I have less control over war peace declerations (after 1.4.1, new tribute war peace system) but I can check why attacker army do not build siege equipments.

I can examine war peace codes next week but I need a bit time for going deep and understanding these codes and fix them.
<3
 

AxiosXiphos

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I have to disagree with your comparison. Total War has so much more going on and its so much more complex than Bannerlord, I see this as apples and oranges. And while anecdotal, while playing total war warhammer II I don't think i've ever experience game ruining snowballing like there is in Bannerlord.

Secondly, all of this amounts to design decision. They didn't have to start with the world at war. They could've had each empire at peace and slowly have political events happen that cause wars to break out, which occur while the player does the man quest line. In fact, having the quest where the player goes around and talk to NPCS is the perfect time period for the world to be at peace. Or they could have certain empires in non-aggression packs with other empires for a time.

In conclusion, If they want the game to be more arcade like, I just think most of us will be dissatisfied until the greater mod community can overhaul the game.
I disagree with your disagreement. Total war has a lot less going on.

Think about two factions at war in total war. They have gold, they gain gold from cities, they use gold to make armies (from an infinite supply) and then they throw those armies at the enemies cities and armies until one wins.

In bannerlord armies belong to clans not factions, each clan has its own objectives, each army has its own objectives. A factions power is the summary of all its clans armies which are dependent on the economy of the faction and supply of troops. Supply of troops can vary dependent on village prosperity (which varies for its own reasons). Economy varies on a whole suit of other factors as supply of goods ebb around the map.

Throw in additional factors such as player intervention and bandits and the whole system for (which faction is stronger) is actually quite a difficult calculation.
 

Tercero

Sergeant Knight
WBM&B
Best answers
0
I disagree with your disagreement. Total war has a lot less going on.

Think about two factions at war in total war. They have gold, they gain gold from cities, they use gold to make armies (from an infinite supply) and then they throw those armies at the enemies cities and armies until one wins.

In bannerlord armies belong to clans not factions, each clan has its own objectives, each army has its own objectives. A factions power is the summary of all its clans armies which are dependent on the economy of the faction and supply of troops. Supply of troops can vary dependent on village prosperity (which varies for its own reasons). Economy varies on a whole suit of other factors as supply of goods ebb around the map.

Throw in additional factors such as player intervention and bandits and the whole system for (which faction is stronger) is actually quite a difficult calculation.
Completely agree.

Regarding snowballing, I am experiencing some snowballing, Northern Empire has been wiped out entirely, but surprisingly, Sturgia is holding pretty well.

In any case, would expect snowballing to be fixed the latest given that, as said above, any change can potentially destroy the balance you build in a given version - Having said that, fixing war/peace system, that is another thing that would be good to look into, I guess that is what Mexxico is going to have a look at, which I think makes total sense - Thank you for that by the way!
 

StewVader

Recruit
Best answers
0
I disagree with your disagreement. Total war has a lot less going on.

Think about two factions at war in total war. They have gold, they gain gold from cities, they use gold to make armies (from an infinite supply) and then they throw those armies at the enemies cities and armies until one wins.

In bannerlord armies belong to clans not factions, each clan has its own objectives, each army has its own objectives. A factions power is the summary of all its clans armies which are dependent on the economy of the faction and supply of troops. Supply of troops can vary dependent on village prosperity (which varies for its own reasons). Economy varies on a whole suit of other factors as supply of goods ebb around the map.

Throw in additional factors such as player intervention and bandits and the whole system for (which faction is stronger) is actually quite a difficult calculation.
I can't see your point of view. Total War has many more unit types, more stats on each unit, more features, more mechanics (like magic and settlement building), it's much bigger and far more complex to balance. Just think of all the different unit abilities. Not to even mention formations, and settlement/unit modifiers, naval units, units that can go underground (total war has non-factions NPCs running around too). Honestly, its not even close. Total War has 10x more going on than Bannerlord.

Also, Total War generals are similar to a clans in Bannerlord. In both games a factions power is the summary of all its holdings and generals/clans. Its actually very similar:

Total War factions have Generals with armies / Bannerlord factions have clans with armies.

Total War generals operate independently, assist in the gains of the faction / Banner lord clans operate independently, assist in the gains of the faction.

There are differences for sure, but Bannerlord currently doesn't really fleshout those differences, like effect of relationships. Also, since they decided to ruin trade and workshops there is no reason to even engage in those activities.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Knight
Best answers
0
I am examining situation currently. Will report you later what is happening. I have less control over war peace declerations (after 1.4.1, new tribute war peace system) but I can check why attacker army do not build siege equipments.

I can examine war peace codes next week but I need a bit time for going deep and understanding these codes and fix them. What I see as problem is some factions be in war with multiple factions and they do not tend to make peace even they are not in good situation. This make them eliminated in first years. I can fix it in next weeks.
This is a pure speculation, but is Raganavald (Sturgian ruler) having the Daring or some other trait part of the problem? I've seen him continue wars even when the results were disastrous, over multiple (like 10+) playthroughs back when I was doing observer runs.
 
Best answers
0
I can't see your point of view. Total War has many more unit types, more stats on each unit, more features, more mechanics (like magic and settlement building), it's much bigger and far more complex to balance. Just think of all the different unit abilities. Not to even mention formations, and settlement/unit modifiers (total war has non-factions NPCs running around too). Honestly, its not even close. Total War has 10x more going on than Bannerlord.

Also, Total War generals are similar to a clans in Bannerlord. In both games a factions power is the summary of all its holdings and generals/clans. Its actually very similar:

Total War factions have Generals with armies / Bannerlord factions have clans with armies.

Total War generals operate independently, assist in the gains of the faction / Banner lord clans operate independently, assist in the gains of the faction.

There are differences for sure, but Bannerlord currently doesn't really fleshout those differences, like effect of relationships.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Totalwar doesn't have a simulated economy or an inventory, which is much harder I'd imagine to balance and code an AI to interact with than it is to balance magical unit abilities. It isn't all that complex and has been streamlined consistently throughout it's various iterations to make it easier to digest. Even so, Bannerlord will have more features coming I'm sure, units, formations, mechanics etc.

I agree with your sentiment on the starting state of the world though. I too would like to see everyone start out at peace. I think this would make for more varied campaigns where the same wars don't always start. I'd also like to see more diplomatic options between factions. Alliances, defensive pacts, non aggression pacts, trade agreements, etc.

So far I haven't seen any mentions of whether this is part of the lore or something that Taleworlds would be willing to change, or at least give an option for the player to select starting conditions, but I'd love to hear more about what they plan to do with it.
 

AxiosXiphos

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I can't see your point of view. Total War has many more unit types, more stats on each unit, more features, more mechanics (like magic and settlement building), it's much bigger and far more complex to balance. Just think of all the different unit abilities. Not to even mention formations, and settlement/unit modifiers, naval units, units that can go underground (total war has non-factions NPCs running around too). Honestly, its not even close. Total War has 10x more going on than Bannerlord.

Also, Total War generals are similar to a clans in Bannerlord. In both games a factions power is the summary of all its holdings and generals/clans. Its actually very similar:

Total War factions have Generals with armies / Bannerlord factions have clans with armies.

Total War generals operate independently, assist in the gains of the faction / Banner lord clans operate independently, assist in the gains of the faction.

There are differences for sure, but Bannerlord currently doesn't really fleshout those differences, like effect of relationships. Also, since they decided to ruin trade and workshops there is no reason to even engage in those activities.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Those battle factors do not factor into 'snowballing' though. Magic, unit types, non of that matters to the campaigh map because the auto resolve resolution is very very simple (which is why auto resolve results can be so wonky). Only campaign mechanics count as far as snowballing is concerned the same way only bannerlord campaign mechanics count.

Fact is total war has a very simply balancing game by comparison. How much do units costs, how much gold do cities produce and how effective are those units in the very basic auto resolve function. Yes heroes add a little flair.. and settlements can change moderately but overall it's quite a 'relatively' simple procedure. total war armies do not operate independently; they are an asset of the overall faction and that faction plays cohesively, bannerlord parties fulfil their own clans agenda (apart from when called to armies).
 

FlagsDontLie

Recruit
Best answers
0
I am examining situation currently. Will report you later what is happening. I have less control over war peace declerations (after 1.4.1, new tribute war peace system) but I can check why attacker army do not build siege equipments.

I can examine war peace codes next week but I need a bit time for going deep and understanding these codes and fix them. What I see as problem is some factions be in war with multiple factions and they do not tend to make peace even they are not in good situation. This make them eliminated in first years. I can fix it in next weeks.
Hey Mex, are you the only dev who is taking care of bug fixing and this stuff?

Bcs you always reply to broken things and tell us that you would fix this by your own. I thought behind TW is a team of 80 ppl?
 

StewVader

Recruit
Best answers
0
Those battle factors do not factor into 'snowballing' though. Magic, unit types, non of that matters to the campaigh map because the auto resolve resolution is very very simple (which is why auto resolve results can be so wonky). Only campaign mechanics count as far as snowballing is concerned the same way only bannerlord campaign mechanics count.

Fact is total war has a very simply balancing game by comparison. How much do units costs, how much gold do cities produce and how effective are those units in the very basic auto resolve function. Yes heroes add a little flair.. and settlements can change moderately but overall it's quite a 'relatively' simple procedure. total war armies do not operate independently; they are an asset of the overall faction and that faction plays cohesively, bannerlord parties fulfil their own clans agenda (apart from when called to armies).
And most of the time in Bannerlord they are in armies. I'm really just not persuaded by your argument at all. All of the things you listed here apply to Bannerlord as well:

How much does it cost to recruit units, how much gold do settlements produce, how effective is each unit in auto resolve. I just don't see the complexity your talking about in any way shape or form.